I'm fresh off of seeing Macca in concert here, in Vancouver, Canada, a few weeks ago, and of course it was a memorable event, having seen my first live Beatle. I wrote a brief review of the concert in a local paper, here :

My short review, written later the night of the show, naturally is entirely positive. The next evening after the concert, however, I'd had time to reflect on the show, the man and the fans. I am a retired news reporter and in my career I've covered shows of all kinds, from Broadway to punk. So based on the what I've heard about Macca via the media grapevine, things I've read in practically every bio ever published about him, and based on my own experience as a media representative I went back to that site to vent some criticisms. Read them at the same link [above], just scroll further down the page. My user name is "Will Travis." I feel safe in airing certain criticisms about Macca's work and character because of my own experience in the news business.

What I have to say about Macca, in short, is that the "cute" Beatle in real life is not exactly "cute." Sir Paul {Oh, that 'Sir' bit makes me gag!} has become a bit of a monster: The Great Walking Ego. His road crew are apparently trained in Gestapo-like control, and he's the Head Control Freak of the show. Go read my two posts at the above link, and other comments I've written here [below] to get the whole picture of how I feel about McCartney.

VIZ:

My only musical criticism of the show: The drumming was overdone - just a straight-ahead take-no-prisoners sonic attack force. Nobody should drum to Beatles music except Ringo. Only Ringo has that playful sense of syncopation, surprising rhythmic patterns and exquisite cymbal play. It's not HOW LOUD you are, but how CLEVER you are - my opinion only...I guess expecting another virtuoso to show up like Ringo is hoping against all hope.

A sore point. The Macca Road Show Organization is extremely uptight. First, a few days before the concert, in the post came a "Rule Book" sort of memo for Macca shows!!! A few examples: 1) No flash cameras. 2) No lighting instruments of any kind[ie. lighters, glo wands] 3) You're late, you don't get in! I've never seen such a controlling caper at any other rock show, and I found that really offensive. Never before had I seen "rules" mailed out to ticket-holders before a show! That's just uptight.

AND THEN.....Security was waaay over-the-top! Almost like boarding a plane. They gave my friend a heavy-handed hard time because of his "detachable lense" digital camera, and almost turned us back. "You can't have that in the show, go put it in your car." We explained that we hadn't arrived at the show by auto. And to their ludicrous suggestion that we go drop the offending camera off at a friend's place, we told them that neither had we any friends nearby where we could "check" the thing either. "So too bad. You can't bring it in," they said. Tempers flared. Other fans around us got in on the fracas, angrily. It got pushy and shovey. My friend, outraged at such treatment, said, "So you're telling us we can't see the show? What about the $500 we've paid?" "Too bad about that," was Security's answer!!! Mymini-digital camera was ok, but not my friend's full-feature digital Canon with zoom, etc. My pal really ripped their throats out about it, and he had to take his complaint three levels up the management ladder, just so that he could bring in his camera.! It was a bit of an ugly experience! ? Not-so-cute, Macca!

Apparently Macca is SO fukkin intent on controlling everything, only credentialed media people are allowed to get good quality photos of him onstage. I guess Macca figures he can afford to give away "cheap" ie. "low quality" photos. But if you want quality photos of His Highhess....see Him!

Or perhaps his issue is not "hi-quality" photos as such, but editorial control of photos taken at the show - no un-flattering photos of His Highness allowed! Now, I have witnessed many times big-name entertainers using their PR flacks to attempt control over photos taken by news media at the concerts. That's one thing, because media are surely going to publish their photos in the news, and, yes, if something untoward happens in the show, media will certainly jump to capture a bad moment in a show. That's news!

Ok, it's not an unheard of attitude for big-name performers to attempt the heavy-handed kind of control over photos that my friend and I experienced at the Vancouver show. It is not unknown. But it is tacky and small. And it reflects very badly on our so-called "cute Beatle."

NOT so cute, Macca!

Here Endeth the Sermon, Brothers and Sisters.

13 January 20138.36am

Gerard

Philippines, the country which no Beatle would dare to perform again.

Candlestick Park

Forum Posts: 690

Member Since: 27 December 2012

Offline

2

To watch Paul's concert is in my bucket list so I am prepared for all of this. The drummer is Abraham Laboriel Sr.'s Son, a talented bassist, although yeah his son plays the drums like it's an overkill

"And in the End the Love you take is equal to the Love you make"
"When I was a robber *Piano Chord* in Boston Place"
"Let's hope this turns out pretty darn good huh"
"Pete may be the best, but Ringo is the star"
Paul:"Don't be nervous John"
John:"I 'm not"

13 January 201312.25pm

tkj

The Cavern Club

Forum Posts: 82

Member Since: 8 August 2012

Offline

3

I will never understand this Macca hate. I think there's just something about him that makes people hate him, but I cant/will never understand what it is. In my opinion Macca is the nicest one out of The Beatles. The security guards wouldnt let you bring your camera in for the show = Macca's an asshole ? Many shows got that rule, I didnt see the big shocking thing in this.

13 January 201311.54pm

Inner Light

Friar Park

Candlestick Park

Forum Posts: 526

Member Since: 20 December 2010

Offline

4

I agree about the camera situation. There are a lot of concerts where they crack down on what type of camera or video source you have when attending shows so wouldn't put that all on McCartney but I did read the article about the way he comes across and how he doesn't give others recognition and I agree with you. I have heard and read many articles that support this claim. I read once that he expects the stars to ask him for his autograph. You should always give your band individual response. He would never sound as good as he does without them. What really started me taking a hard look at him was a few years ago when he was trying to change the Lennon/McCartney songs that he felt he was the major writer on to McCartney/Lennon. That is ridiculous. He does have a huge ego. I have said this many times on this site that he lives for attention. This is the biggest problem I have with him. He is an excellent singer/songwriter/musician but likes to show off and in my opinion, not very humble. He should have taken more lessons from Harrison. The Concert for George was the only time I have ever seen him perform where he was very humble and not acting like a twenty year old with his whoo's and thumbs up signs. He needs to watch that concert again and make some changes.

The further one travels, the less one knows

14 January 201312.26am

Will T.

Vancouver, B.C. Canada

St Peters Church

Forum Posts: 11

Member Since: 13 January 2013

Offline

5

Hi tkj:

Macca is such a huge celebrity, there are bound to be many spurious, mean things said about him. It comes with the territory. I've read practically every single biography of him out there, and I think I can say to you with some authority that he really is living in another world, where He is King and nobody else counts. The recent exhaustive bio, "FAB: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney," by Howard Sounes covers his entire life in exhaustive detail. Sounes interviewed hundreds of people for the book (Macca refuses to speak to authors - one count against him right there!), and here are few observations extracted from the book:

He was arrogant, turning up late for the meeting with Brian Epstein that would seal their future, and soon considered himself a cut above the others.

Macca really broke up The Beatles. He was the first one to sue. He hated that the other three wanted Allen Klein to be their manager - he wanted the Eastman family to represent them, Linda's family - so he simply sued for dissolution of "Beatles Inc."

Macca drove Wings to a very bitchy end. He mis-treated his bandmates, insisting on having his own way over every note, every single stage movement, even every stage costume. He was notorious for not paying the band on time, or in amounts of $$ promised, or not paying at all. (He refused to sign contracts establishing exact remuneration band members would be paid.) He played favourites with pay packages, creating an atmosphere of sycophancy: Be nice to Himself, maybe you'll get paid more than the others.

He has recorded so many desultory, awful solo albums that went nowhere, unlike his fellow Beatles who usually at least got their records on the charts. (Even Ringo)

He has hidden behind a carefully cultivated PR image of blokeish normality, but ultimately his phalanx of PR hacks fail to disguise a man who has lost touch with everyday reality, buying land, houses, cars and horses as we shop for groceries. A music-business manager is quoted in "Fab": rock stars are never like the rest of us - they only pretend to be.

These observations are not just those of one author: most of Macca's biographers over the years have uncovered the same "un-cute" traits of his. They can't all be wrong!

And...as I've already reported in my first post, the Macca concert I attended in November left a bitter after-taste in my mouth, when I had time to think about it.

It's clearly evident that Maccca has one massive Ego, and he's a Control Freak! He is, however, a talented actor and uses his personal charm to seduce "friends" and fans. I think his seductive charm - his charisma - was the quality of his that first pulled him into John Lennon's orbit.Didn't Lennon sour on him after many years, saying that Paul was a person he loved-and-hated? There you have it: Macca is a "difficult" personality. Yes, he's hugely talenetd, ambitious and charismatic. But everywhere he goes he tends to leave a few enemies behind. Would I go to another concert of his, if he returned to Vancouver? No, I don't think so. I did not like the Control Gestapo freaks who protect him.

You see, tkj, it's so easy for fans to raise a talent like Macca to god-like status. But he's just a human being. Not much different from you, or me! His knighthood is no big deal - everybody and his brother in the UK gets one for doing anything impressive. His vast wealth allows him to insulate himself from the real world, our world where people have to give a bit to take a bit, and get along with one another. No, he Gets Everything He Wants! Not so Cute!

14 January 20131.38pm

Ben Ramon

Candlestick Park

Forum Posts: 619

Member Since: 26 March 2012

Offline

6

To be honest, I don't really understand why you've signed up to this forum to list a load of things that everybody already knew. Rock stars live in their own ego-fuelled, money-burning, egotistical dream world? What's new? That's a pretty widely accepted fact, and McCartney is no exception. PR man? Undoubtedly. Control freak? Definitely. But put yourself in his shoes; I'm not particularly surprised that he acts the way he does.

Will T. said

(Macca refuses to speak to authors - one count against him right there!)

Many celebrities do the same, particularly ones with a reputation as huge as McCartney's to uphold. I would certainly distrust unofficial authors and biographers with parts of such a scrutinised and widely-discussed life story; they are often out to twist words and dig up dirt, and what is printed is not necessarily the same as what was said (look at the "bigger than Jesus" controversy for one good reason why Paul might take this stance). Macca readily and frequently gives detailed interviews on television and in magazines- is that not enough?

Macca really broke up The Beatles. He was the first one to sue. He hated that the other three wanted Allen Klein to be their manager - he wanted the Eastman family to represent them, Linda's family - so he simply sued for dissolution of "Beatles Inc."

No one person broke up the Beatles. There are hundreds of factors to consider when one asks who it was or why it happened. McCartney have carried out the official dissolution, but a) everybody is already aware of that, so it's essentially water under the bridge, and b) I think you're overlooking the fact that he was in fact right about Klein being a crook.

Macca drove Wings to a very bitchy end. He mis-treated his bandmates, insisting on having his own way over every note, every single stage movement, even every stage costume.

He had previously been half of the main songwriting team for the Beatles, a band so enormously successful, talented and groundbreaking that whatever he did afterwards would be seen in a highly critical "post-Beatles" light. Again, it's a case of having a reputation to uphold. If I was in his position I would run a pretty tight ship too. Not to mention the fact that without McCartney, Wings was nothing- can you imagine how unremarkable their output would have been had he taken a back seat and let everybody else control the majority of the musical output? Don't get me wrong, I respect that many of the other musicians in Wings were very talented in their own right; but when Wings really shone, it was only ever because there was an ex-Beatle writing their songs. I won't comment on the financial matters because I don't know how easily verified they are, having only ever read about them in Geoffrey Giuliano's "Blackbird": a truth-twisting mud-stirring sensationalised piece of hackwork if ever I read one.

He has recorded so many desultory, awful solo albums that went nowhere, unlike his fellow Beatles who usually at least got their records on the charts. (Even Ringo)

While this is a perfectly valid opinion to have, it's hardly a fair or objective criticism of Paul himself. Since the Beatles' breakup, McCartney has by FAR been the most musically prolific Beatle; even factoring in the deaths of John and George, this is still the case. He has released an extraordinarily diverse and eclectic body of work between 1970 and now, and some of it is bound to be below par. Dylan, Bowie, Neil Young, the Stones, Eric Clapton and many other musical luminaries still recording today have also released their fair share of non-charting dreck; and I'm pretty sure that in a better world, with John still alive and making records, he would have released his fair share of it too. If you're setting out to show the "cute Beatle" in his true light by examining his persona, then sticking it to something as subjective as his music is entirely the wrong way to go about it.

He has hidden behind a carefully cultivated PR image of blokeish normality, but ultimately his phalanx of PR hacks fail to disguise a man who has lost touch with everyday reality, buying land, houses, cars and horses as we shop for groceries. A music-business manager is quoted in "Fab": rock stars are never like the rest of us - they only pretend to be.

Big whoop! He's a self-made man to a large extent; he's earned the right to spend his money. Do you really expect him to just sit on it and live in an ordinary house somewhere? An acquisition of enormous wealth comes with a vast lifestyle change; everyday reality would be quite difficult to keep in touch with, if you ask me. Although the "thumbs-aloft" public image that he cultivates can be extremely irritating and often doesn't do him any favours, public image is everything when you're that famous and anybody with a brain would also endeavour to come across well in the public eye.

His knighthood is no big deal – everybody and his brother in the UK gets one for doing anything impressive.

That's simply untrue. Like it or not, McCartney received a knighthood because he has consistently been in the foreground of British and world culture, having been a titanic driving force in the greatest band ever. Not many people can claim to have achieved so much. While I'd agree that it shouldn't enhance anybody's opinion of him, the knighthood is a massive honour and is only handed out to those who have done some remarkable things in their time.

His vast wealth allows him to insulate himself from the real world, our world where people have to give a bit to take a bit, and get along with one another. No, he Gets Everything He Wants! Not so Cute!

You also seem to be forgetting that he's also a philanthropist and animal rights activist who has countless times lent his talent and fortune to worthy, humanistic causes; and that "getting along with one another" is exactly his philosophy; his whole friendly PR character is surely cultivated for that exact reason, to come across as endearing and likeable. If he was just doing nothing, wallowing in his money, I might be inclined to agree with you. But the fact is, he's still making music because it's what he loves to do, still writing songs for people to enjoy, and I think apart from everything else that's the real thing that drives him.

While I do agree with you that there are aspects of Paul that are arrogant, egotistical and swamped in the thumbs-aloft PR mania, my question to you is really: so what? What are you trying to gain by coming here and telling everybody about it? You only have to watch an interview with McCartney to ascertain that he harbours those traits, from a whole lifetime of adulation and people nodding their heads to whatever he has to offer. I think I'd be like that too.

SHUT UP - Paulie's talkin'

14 January 20135.07pm

linkjws

The Star-Club

Forum Posts: 68

Member Since: 25 September 2012

Offline

7

I don't see the point to all of this. I am sorry if his concert left you bitter about the man, but he is just a human. All of The Beatles have had every aspect of their life endlessly put under the microscope, and as it turns out all of them were simply people; full of mistakes and imperfections like the rest of us. Yes the man has an incredible talent. Yes he was a Beatle. But, he was just as flawed as Lennon, Harrison, or Starr. And sure he runs a tight, questionably dictator-like ship, but until I have met Paul on a personal level (which I most likely never will); I will continue to think he is just who I see him to be. A little arrogant, a little flashy, but no doubt a good person.

14 January 20138.00pm

Will T.

Vancouver, B.C. Canada

St Peters Church

Forum Posts: 11

Member Since: 13 January 2013

Offline

8

Ben: Everything you say here is generally fair. But the point you're missing is that I've arrived at a point in my appreciation of the Beatles where fan-worshipis discarded. We leave the things of our childhood behind. I still and always will worship Beatlesmusic. We are SO fortunate to have lived as contemporaries to the Beatles, to have been the FIRST human ears to hear the music!

But by the age of approx. 40 I had gotten tired of worrying about every little detail of the personal lives of the Fabs - as if I were a parent with the duty to always love and protect them as persons. That is essentially the nature of fan-worship, to 'adopt' your beloved objects of adoration as your very own wunderkind! Sorry, I've moved on from that.

So, my appreciation of The Beatles has been affected by my own experience of aging and (hopefully) some picayune acquisition of maturity, and by the huge amounts of reportage I've consumed avidly over the years about the Fabs in books, magazines, documentary films, the media grapevine, etc; and by my own experience as a working journalist who has interviewed hundreds of famous faces, seen behind the curtains, overheard their un-published and often 'colourful' toss-off remarks, and I've personally witnessed the truly jaw-dropping PR jobs their hacks do for them! Trust me: there are many celebrities you know Nothing Real about at all. And Macca is one of them!

If The Beatles Bible is intended as purely a fan-worhsip site, then I guess I'd better move along...it isn't for me! I merely suggest we do ourselves (and our favourite artists) a big favour and get over childish fan-worship.

Ben, do you really want to gag me? Do you really want to hear only "cute" Macca stuff, and bury the rest of his personal story (some of which is really frightful)?

Example.

Question; How many 'Macca children' are there in the world, whose teen-aged mommies were regularly paid off with bags of cash handed out by Brian Epstein to keep them quiet and make them go away?

Answer: Lots! Macca has spent a lot of cash keeping these women and their children out of sight. See the documentary film titled...oh SHOOT! I can't find the video right now...it's in my house here somewhere...darn!...anyway, see documentary film approximately-titled "The Beatles. The Untold Road Stories"... I repeat, I've temporarily lost the video of this film, so that title is only my fragmented memory of the real title. I promise, when I find the video I'll come back to this message and edit for the correct title! I promise. Anyway, the film is a truly dispiriting portrayal of the travelling satyricon The Beatles Roadshow was - women coming [ !! ] and going from the entourage as if through a spinning turnstile. Some of them came back like a bad facial blemish with babes in-arms, claiming Beatle paternity. Epstein paid-off dozens of them! One might even argue that that's where the vanishing Beatles fortune went! (joking. but still...how much money was pay-off for Beatle mommies?)

Look, Ben, I've been a journalist. It has been my career to dig up the Truth. I'm good at it, I had a brilliant career (shut-down by ill health, dammit!). And as you see I've used as my signature here at The Beatles Bible a phrase from John Lennon's lyric "Gimme Some Truth." Years ago I made that phrase my personal motto: ALL I Want Is The Truth. Can you accept that? I truly hope you can. A free press really is the basis for our democracies.If fan-worhsip isn't a vast conspiracy of silence, covering the whole globe in celebrity dreck, than what is it? To my journalist's eyes, fan worship is dangerous. People talk these days about "The One Per Cent" of wealthy people who pull all the strings. Wouldn't Macca be among The One Per Cent? Philanthropy is often the False Front of the evil One Per Cent, so please, don't defend Macca with that dodge! His philanthropy is like pocket change to him. He can afford it.

Why shouldn't Macca's falsehoods and hypocrisies be held up for public examination? Somebody MUST always do that work, for your and my own good. I'm one of those oft-despised people. Sorry.

Ben Ramon said
To be honest, I don't really understand why you've signed up to this forum to list a load of things that everybody already knew. Rock stars live in their own ego-fuelled, money-burning, egotistical dream world? What's new? That's a pretty widely accepted fact, and McCartney is no exception. PR man? Undoubtedly. Control freak? Definitely. But put yourself in his shoes; I'm not particularly surprised that he acts the way he does.

Will T. said

(Macca refuses to speak to authors - one count against him right there!)

Many celebrities do the same, particularly ones with a reputation as huge as McCartney's to uphold. I would certainly distrust unofficial authors and biographers with parts of such a scrutinised and widely-discussed life story; they are often out to twist words and dig up dirt, and what is printed is not necessarily the same as what was said (look at the "bigger than Jesus" controversy for one good reason why Paul might take this stance). Macca readily and frequently gives detailed interviews on television and in magazines- is that not enough?

Macca really broke up The Beatles. He was the first one to sue. He hated that the other three wanted Allen Klein to be their manager - he wanted the Eastman family to represent them, Linda's family - so he simply sued for dissolution of "Beatles Inc."

No one person broke up the Beatles. There are hundreds of factors to consider when one asks who it was or why it happened. McCartney have carried out the official dissolution, but a) everybody is already aware of that, so it's essentially water under the bridge, and b) I think you're overlooking the fact that he was in fact right about Klein being a crook.

Macca drove Wings to a very bitchy end. He mis-treated his bandmates, insisting on having his own way over every note, every single stage movement, even every stage costume.

He had previously been half of the main songwriting team for the Beatles, a band so enormously successful, talented and groundbreaking that whatever he did afterwards would be seen in a highly critical "post-Beatles" light. Again, it's a case of having a reputation to uphold. If I was in his position I would run a pretty tight ship too. Not to mention the fact that without McCartney, Wings was nothing- can you imagine how unremarkable their output would have been had he taken a back seat and let everybody else control the majority of the musical output? Don't get me wrong, I respect that many of the other musicians in Wings were very talented in their own right; but when Wings really shone, it was only ever because there was an ex-Beatle writing their songs. I won't comment on the financial matters because I don't know how easily verified they are, having only ever read about them in Geoffrey Giuliano's "Blackbird": a truth-twisting mud-stirring sensationalised piece of hackwork if ever I read one.

He has recorded so many desultory, awful solo albums that went nowhere, unlike his fellow Beatles who usually at least got their records on the charts. (Even Ringo)

While this is a perfectly valid opinion to have, it's hardly a fair or objective criticism of Paul himself. Since the Beatles' breakup, McCartney has by FAR been the most musically prolific Beatle; even factoring in the deaths of John and George, this is still the case. He has released an extraordinarily diverse and eclectic body of work between 1970 and now, and some of it is bound to be below par. Dylan, Bowie, Neil Young, the Stones, Eric Clapton and many other musical luminaries still recording today have also released their fair share of non-charting dreck; and I'm pretty sure that in a better world, with John still alive and making records, he would have released his fair share of it too. If you're setting out to show the "cute Beatle" in his true light by examining his persona, then sticking it to something as subjective as his music is entirely the wrong way to go about it.

He has hidden behind a carefully cultivated PR image of blokeish normality, but ultimately his phalanx of PR hacks fail to disguise a man who has lost touch with everyday reality, buying land, houses, cars and horses as we shop for groceries. A music-business manager is quoted in "Fab": rock stars are never like the rest of us - they only pretend to be.

Big whoop! He's a self-made man to a large extent; he's earned the right to spend his money. Do you really expect him to just sit on it and live in an ordinary house somewhere? An acquisition of enormous wealth comes with a vast lifestyle change; everyday reality would be quite difficult to keep in touch with, if you ask me. Although the "thumbs-aloft" public image that he cultivates can be extremely irritating and often doesn't do him any favours, public image is everything when you're that famous and anybody with a brain would also endeavour to come across well in the public eye.

His knighthood is no big deal – everybody and his brother in the UK gets one for doing anything impressive.

That's simply untrue. Like it or not, McCartney received a knighthood because he has consistently been in the foreground of British and world culture, having been a titanic driving force in the greatest band ever. Not many people can claim to have achieved so much. While I'd agree that it shouldn't enhance anybody's opinion of him, the knighthood is a massive honour and is only handed out to those who have done some remarkable things in their time.

His vast wealth allows him to insulate himself from the real world, our world where people have to give a bit to take a bit, and get along with one another. No, he Gets Everything He Wants! Not so Cute!

You also seem to be forgetting that he's also a philanthropist and animal rights activist who has countless times lent his talent and fortune to worthy, humanistic causes; and that "getting along with one another" is exactly his philosophy; his whole friendly PR character is surely cultivated for that exact reason, to come across as endearing and likeable. If he was just doing nothing, wallowing in his money, I might be inclined to agree with you. But the fact is, he's still making music because it's what he loves to do, still writing songs for people to enjoy, and I think apart from everything else that's the real thing that drives him.

While I do agree with you that there are aspects of Paul that are arrogant, egotistical and swamped in the thumbs-aloft PR mania, my question to you is really: so what? What are you trying to gain by coming here and telling everybody about it? You only have to watch an interview with McCartney to ascertain that he harbours those traits, from a whole lifetime of adulation and people nodding their heads to whatever he has to offer. I think I'd be like that too.

14 January 20138.39pm

Inner Light

Friar Park

Candlestick Park

Forum Posts: 526

Member Since: 20 December 2010

Offline

9

Ben: Everything you say here is generally fair. But the point you're missing is that I've arrived at a point in my appreciation of the Beatles where fan-worshipis discarded. We leave the things of our childhood behind. I still and always will worship Beatlesmusic. We are SOfortunate to have lived as contemporaries to the Beatles, to have been the FIRST human ears to hear the music!

But by the age of approx. 40 I had gotten tired of worrying about every little detail of the personal lives of the Fabs – as if I were a parent with the duty to always love and protect them as persons. That is essentially the nature of fan-worship, to 'adopt' your beloved objects of adoration as your very own wunderkind! Sorry, I've moved on from that.

So, my appreciation of The Beatles has been affected by my own experience of aging and (hopefully) some picayune acquisition of maturity, and by the huge amounts of reportage I've consumed avidly over the years about the Fabs in books, magazines, documentary films, the media grapevine, etc; and by my own experience as a working journalist who has interviewed hundreds of famous faces, seen behind the curtains, overheard their un-published and often 'colourful' toss-off remarks, and I've personally witnessed the truly jaw-dropping PR jobs their hacksdo for them! Trust me: there are many celebrities you know Nothing Real about at all. And Macca is one of them!

If The Beatles Bible is intended as purely a fan-worhsip site, then I guess I'd better move along…it isn't for me! I merely suggest we do ourselves (and our favourite artists) a big favour and get over childish fan-worship.

Ben, do you really want to gag me? Do you really want to hear only "cute" Macca stuff, and bury the rest of his personal story (some of which is really frightful)?

I agree with you again Will. It seems the older I get the more my eyes are opened to change. I do not like adulation. I do not like people who are good at something and have an ego about it. I do not like the phoniness that goes with the territory. Once again, I like McCartney as a musician but I feel his need to have attention and adulation is hard for me to accept anymore. I feel we need to grow as human beings as we grow older and mature. He just seems to me that he wants to keep the Beatle thing going with the screaming and the attention he receives. Humbleness is an important factor in our lives and we need/he needs to keep this in his thoughts. No body likes a 'Show-Off' and those who do need to look at themselves and make some serious changes.

The further one travels, the less one knows

14 January 20139.00pm

Ben Ramon

Candlestick Park

Forum Posts: 619

Member Since: 26 March 2012

Offline

10

Will T. said

Ben: Everything you say here is generally fair. But the point you're missing is that I've arrived at a point in my appreciation of the Beatles where fan-worshipis discarded. We leave the things of our childhood behind. I still and always will worship Beatlesmusic. We are SO fortunate to have lived as contemporaries to the Beatles, to have been the FIRST human ears to hear the music!

But by the age of approx. 40 I had gotten tired of worrying about every little detail of the personal lives of the Fabs - as if I were a parent with the duty to always love and protect them as persons. That is essentially the nature of fan-worship, to 'adopt' your beloved objects of adoration as your very own wunderkind! Sorry, I've moved on from that.

I think you'll find, by perusing the rest of the forums a little more, that the discussion on here is anything but biased or imbued with a sense of "fan-worship." Everybody here loves the Beatles, and everybody here loves their music, but everybody has differing opinions, favourites, least favourites, and mention of some of the Beatles' songs and actions is often critical. For any discussion forum, this is surely for the good. In any thread, you will see forum members offering balanced and nuanced opinions on what the band have done, not thousands of posts blindly obsessing over how jaw-droppingly unflawed and godly they were.

So, my appreciation of The Beatles has been affected by my own experience of aging and (hopefully) some picayune acquisition of maturity, and by the huge amounts of reportage I've consumed avidly over the years about the Fabs in books, magazines, documentary films, the media grapevine, etc; and by my own experience as a working journalist who has interviewed hundreds of famous faces, seen behind the curtains, overheard their un-published and often 'colourful' toss-off remarks, and I've personally witnessed the truly jaw-dropping PR jobs their hacks do for them! Trust me: there are many celebrities you know Nothing Real about at all. And Macca is one of them!

But again, what's your point? Everybody has secrets. Everybody is "not so cute" under the microscope, and people hide that side when they are engaging and communicating with others. Why is it necessary to show all of this stuff off on a forum where people have already accepted that the Beatles were not demigods and still enjoy their music and respect them greatly?

If The Beatles Bible is intended as purely a fan-worhsip site, then I guess I'd better move along...it isn't for me! I merely suggest we do ourselves (and our favourite artists) a big favour and get over childish fan-worship.

This comes across as a little patronising. As I said above, you'll find that this forum is not about blinkered, unswayable fan worship.

Ben, do you really want to gag me? Do you really want to hear only "cute" Macca stuff, and bury the rest of his personal story (some of which is really frightful)?

Example.

Question; How many 'Macca children' are there in the world, whose teen-aged mommies were regularly paid off with bags of cash handed out by Brian Epstein to keep them quiet and make them go away?

Answer: Lots! Macca has spent a lot of cash keeping these women and their children out of sight. See the documentary film titled...oh SHOOT! I can't find the video right now...it's in my house here somewhere...darn!...anyway, see documentary film approximately-titled "The Beatles. The Untold Road Stories"... I repeat, I've temporarily lost the video of this film, so that title is only my fragmented memory of the real title. I promise, when I find the video I'll come back to this message and edit for the correct title! I promise. Anyway, the film is a truly dispiriting portrayal of the travelling satyricon The Beatles Roadshow was - women coming [ !! ] and going from the entourage as if through a spinning turnstile. Some of them came back like a bad facial blemish with babes in-arms, claiming Beatle paternity. Epstein paid-off dozens of them! One might even argue that that's where the vanishing Beatles fortune went! (joking. but still...how much money was pay-off for Beatle mommies?)

I'd heard this before, along with the story that sometime in the 80s a girl ran up to Paul, grabbed him by the lapels and screamed "why won't you recognize me?" Yes, it is an unsavoury state of affairs and should be treated with nothing but contempt, but surely with your knowledge of showbusiness you'd recognize that these things happen. It was the Sixties. Paul McCartney was a young rich man, a rock star in the biggest band ever, loved by all, and had access to as many girls as he could get his hands on. Brian Epstein wanted to protect the interests of Paul, the Beatles, and his business, and dealt with it in the way an enterprising businessman would have in that era. It's underhand, but it was necessary. I'm certainly not going to entirely castigate Paul McCartney and Brian Epstein for the actions taken when I still love his music and contribution to culture in general. Also, why are you throwing this at Paul? The other Beatles slept around excessively as well.

Look, Ben, I've been a journalist. It has been my career to dig up the Truth. I'm good at it, I had a brilliant career (shut-down by ill health, dammit!). And as you see I've used as my signature here at The Beatles Bible a phrase from John Lennon's lyric "Gimme Some Truth." Years ago I made that phrase my personal motto: ALL I Want Is The Truth. Can you accept that? I truly hope you can. A free press really is the basis for our democracies.If fan-worhsip isn't a vast conspiracy of silence, covering the whole globe in celebrity dreck, than what is it? To my journalist's eyes, fan worship is dangerous. People talk these days about "The One Per Cent" of wealthy people who pull all the strings. Wouldn't Macca be among The One Per Cent? Philanthropy is often the False Front of the evil One Per Cent, so please, don't defend Macca with that dodge! His philanthropy is like pocket change to him. He can afford it.

Why shouldn't Macca's falsehoods and hypocrisies be held up for public examination? Somebody MUST always do that work, for your and my own good. I'm one of those oft-despised people. Sorry.

But they've been held up for public examination before. Tons of truth has been "dug up" about Macca and widely publicised. Whether it's true or not, who cares? Some of it probably is. I just can't understand why it's necessary for you to "dig up" all these old stories on this forum unless you're trying to get a rise out of fans. If your intention is to convert people away from liking McCartney "because he's not so cute in real life", why don't you try doing that to the average person on the street lest they should fall into the trap of thinking he's a nice guy? You're preaching to the converted here. People here already know about the questionable character traits of their heroes, and they've chosen to maturely accept it and still enjoy the music; surely it's a lot better for everybody if by joining this forum you intend to do the same.

SHUT UP - Paulie's talkin'

14 January 20139.11pm

Ben Ramon

Candlestick Park

Forum Posts: 619

Member Since: 26 March 2012

Offline

11

Inner Light said
I agree with you again Will. It seems the older I get the more my eyes are opened to change. I do not like adulation. I do not like people who are good at something and have an ego about it. I do not like the phoniness that goes with the territory. Once again, I like McCartney as a musician but I feel his need to have attention and adulation is hard for me to accept anymore. I feel we need to grow as human beings as we grow older and mature. He just seems to me that he wants to keep the Beatle thing going with the screaming and the attention he receives. Humbleness is an important factor in our lives and we need/he needs to keep this in his thoughts. No body likes a 'Show-Off' and those who do need to look at themselves and make some serious changes.

The need for attention and adulation is certainly there, and yes, he is an incurable "show-off." However, surely it is also highly commendable that in his 70s he is working very hard to keep the spirit of the Beatles alive, not only because he feels it needs to be but because he enjoys it? Isn't it magical that there's still someone you can buy tickets to go and see if you want to witness the closest thing to the Fab Four performing live? It's not like he's resting on his laurels really; he still pushes his live band hard to get a great sound, it must be hard for him at that age to still be singing and playing the material with such energy, and I feel that his huge tours have been instrumental in the staying power of the Beatles.

SHUT UP - Paulie's talkin'

14 January 20139.48pm

Inner Light

Friar Park

Candlestick Park

Forum Posts: 526

Member Since: 20 December 2010

Offline

12

Ben Ramon said

Inner Light said
I agree with you again Will. It seems the older I get the more my eyes are opened to change. I do not like adulation. I do not like people who are good at something and have an ego about it. I do not like the phoniness that goes with the territory. Once again, I like McCartney as a musician but I feel his need to have attention and adulation is hard for me to accept anymore. I feel we need to grow as human beings as we grow older and mature. He just seems to me that he wants to keep the Beatle thing going with the screaming and the attention he receives. Humbleness is an important factor in our lives and we need/he needs to keep this in his thoughts. No body likes a 'Show-Off' and those who do need to look at themselves and make some serious changes.

The need for attention and adulation is certainly there, and yes, he is an incurable "show-off." However, surely it is also highly commendable that in his 70s he is working very hard to keep the spirit of the Beatles alive, not only because he feels it needs to be but because he enjoys it? Isn't it magical that there's still someone you can buy tickets to go and see if you want to witness the closest thing to the Fab Four performing live? It's not like he's resting on his laurels really; he still pushes his live band hard to get a great sound, it must be hard for him at that age to still be singing and playing the material with such energy, and I feel that his huge tours have been instrumental in the staying power of the Beatles.

I agree with you about how amazing it is at 70 that he still performs worldwide and it is important that he keeps the Beatles songs alive. I have no problem with that. It's the antics he uses on stage. (Thumbs up and the Woo's) I just don't understand why he can't just say 'Thank You' after he performs a song and be very heartfelt by the fans who show their appreciation. I was watching Harrison's 'Live In Japan' concert the other day and after each song he would just say 'Thank You' or even take the spot light off of him and point to a band member giving them recondition. I really liked the way McCartney presented himself during the 'Concert For George'. He was so humble and touched. I really enjoyed his performances. What's really interesting is Paul was more serious during the Beatles touring years 64-66. It seemed that John was the goof off on stage back then.

The further one travels, the less one knows

14 January 201310.41pm

Long John Silver

Hollywood Bowl

Forum Posts: 366

Member Since: 9 May 2012

Offline

13

Different personalities, Paul likes to do "woos" while George is more..hm.. let's say introvert and just says thank you etc... he IS the quite Beatle after all .

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.

15 January 201312.58am

Will T.

Vancouver, B.C. Canada

St Peters Church

Forum Posts: 11

Member Since: 13 January 2013

Offline

14

Well, linkjws said:

the Point of my complaint about the recent Macca concert is that my friend and I were treated like criminals, pushed and shoved, and told we had wasted our $500, because we were NOT entering with the camera. For Heaven's Sake, it's just a freakin' camera! How UPTIGHT does the Macca Roadshow have to be??? That was a really unpleasant experience - all on behalf of Control Freak Macca. Frankly, I think HE owes us an apology. What don't you understand about being pushed and shoved and told we were forfeiting our money, all because my friend happened to have a nice camera?

How would you feel, if it had been you?

linkjws said
I don't see the point to all of this. I am sorry if his concert left you bitter about the man, but he is just a human. All of The Beatles have had every aspect of their life endlessly put under the microscope, and as it turns out all of them were simply people; full of mistakes and imperfections like the rest of us. Yes the man has an incredible talent. Yes he was a Beatle. But, he was just as flawed as Lennon, Harrison, or Starr. And sure he runs a tight, questionably dictator-like ship, but until I have met Paul on a personal level (which I most likely never will); I will continue to think he is just who I see him to be. A little arrogant, a little flashy, but no doubt a good person.

15 January 20131.38am

Will T.

Vancouver, B.C. Canada

St Peters Church

Forum Posts: 11

Member Since: 13 January 2013

Offline

15

Ben:

You said it: "Whether it's true or not, who cares?" I care about the Truth. Especially when it involves public persons. Really? You do not care whether things are true or not? Really? Reeeally????

Then what do you care about?

What if were someone else in the public domain? Say, Prince Charles, and it was suddenly revealed that he has lots of little illigitimate "baby princes" out there from various and sundry loose maidens? Are you saying you wouldn't care? Reaallly?? Really, you wouldn't care?

If I, as a journalist, broke this shocking story about Bonnie Prince Charley, would you say that it must not be published? "Who cares?" Really

Macca has the distinction of a knighthood - this firmly places him as a member of the elevated few who can mingle with royalty. So, like Bonnie Prince Charles, he needs to be very, very careful about his reputation and public image. Well, as it happens, his personal history has been spotty, to put it as kindly! That's history, water under the bridge, OK. But what about his public image today? He hires goons to surveil concert-goers and try to keep out cameras! That is really, really tight-a**ed!

Further, Macca is ungenerous to his bandmates - he treats them like nameless domestic servants, they get no show of appreciation from their boss in-concert!

For an almost-septegenerian guy, Macca's behaviour is juvenile. It seems he hasn't learned certain lessons in life about: humility, sharing and modesty. And fairness. His sordid Wings history is really quite sad - his stinginess, unfair pay packet fooling around. Tight-a**ed control over his bandmates. For example, it is revealed by first-hand account in the Sounes biography that Macca expected his Wings bandmates to be on call 24/7, ready to come work upon his immediate call at any time of day or night. Band members on holidays were expected to drop everything and return to London to work with him on a sudden brainstorm. Really juvenile.

So...my POINT is this: Macca is a public person, by choice. (He always wanted to be famous.) He has been honoured by the Queen.

Yet his private and public behaviours fall far, far short of any kind of honour. He is The Great Walking Ego. He is ungenerous to his bandmates, he presumes certain "royal" perquisites such as controlling photographs taken of Himself. He considers Himself a cut above everyone else. He never shares credit with other artists who have worked with him. His failure to properly honour his bandmates onstage is just the visible part of the Macca Iceberg of Arrogance. In brief, he's not a nice guy.

So I think that this forum might take into consideration such things as this, when spilling forth the plaudits. Simple. You say you don't care. Huh, that's really injudicious! That's blind fan worship!

Ben Ramon said

Will T. said

Ben: Everything you say here is generally fair. But the point you're missing is that I've arrived at a point in my appreciation of the Beatles where fan-worshipis discarded. We leave the things of our childhood behind. I still and always will worship Beatlesmusic. We are SO fortunate to have lived as contemporaries to the Beatles, to have been the FIRST human ears to hear the music!

But by the age of approx. 40 I had gotten tired of worrying about every little detail of the personal lives of the Fabs - as if I were a parent with the duty to always love and protect them as persons. That is essentially the nature of fan-worship, to 'adopt' your beloved objects of adoration as your very own wunderkind! Sorry, I've moved on from that.

I think you'll find, by perusing the rest of the forums a little more, that the discussion on here is anything but biased or imbued with a sense of "fan-worship." Everybody here loves the Beatles, and everybody here loves their music, but everybody has differing opinions, favourites, least favourites, and mention of some of the Beatles' songs and actions is often critical. For any discussion forum, this is surely for the good. In any thread, you will see forum members offering balanced and nuanced opinions on what the band have done, not thousands of posts blindly obsessing over how jaw-droppingly unflawed and godly they were.

So, my appreciation of The Beatles has been affected by my own experience of aging and (hopefully) some picayune acquisition of maturity, and by the huge amounts of reportage I've consumed avidly over the years about the Fabs in books, magazines, documentary films, the media grapevine, etc; and by my own experience as a working journalist who has interviewed hundreds of famous faces, seen behind the curtains, overheard their un-published and often 'colourful' toss-off remarks, and I've personally witnessed the truly jaw-dropping PR jobs their hacks do for them! Trust me: there are many celebrities you know Nothing Real about at all. And Macca is one of them!

But again, what's your point? Everybody has secrets. Everybody is "not so cute" under the microscope, and people hide that side when they are engaging and communicating with others. Why is it necessary to show all of this stuff off on a forum where people have already accepted that the Beatles were not demigods and still enjoy their music and respect them greatly?

If The Beatles Bible is intended as purely a fan-worhsip site, then I guess I'd better move along...it isn't for me! I merely suggest we do ourselves (and our favourite artists) a big favour and get over childish fan-worship.

This comes across as a little patronising. As I said above, you'll find that this forum is not about blinkered, unswayable fan worship.

Ben, do you really want to gag me? Do you really want to hear only "cute" Macca stuff, and bury the rest of his personal story (some of which is really frightful)?

Example.

Question; How many 'Macca children' are there in the world, whose teen-aged mommies were regularly paid off with bags of cash handed out by Brian Epstein to keep them quiet and make them go away?

Answer: Lots! Macca has spent a lot of cash keeping these women and their children out of sight. See the documentary film titled...oh SHOOT! I can't find the video right now...it's in my house here somewhere...darn!...anyway, see documentary film approximately-titled "The Beatles. The Untold Road Stories"... I repeat, I've temporarily lost the video of this film, so that title is only my fragmented memory of the real title. I promise, when I find the video I'll come back to this message and edit for the correct title! I promise. Anyway, the film is a truly dispiriting portrayal of the travelling satyricon The Beatles Roadshow was - women coming [ !! ] and going from the entourage as if through a spinning turnstile. Some of them came back like a bad facial blemish with babes in-arms, claiming Beatle paternity. Epstein paid-off dozens of them! One might even argue that that's where the vanishing Beatles fortune went! (joking. but still...how much money was pay-off for Beatle mommies?)

I'd heard this before, along with the story that sometime in the 80s a girl ran up to Paul, grabbed him by the lapels and screamed "why won't you recognize me?" Yes, it is an unsavoury state of affairs and should be treated with nothing but contempt, but surely with your knowledge of showbusiness you'd recognize that these things happen. It was the Sixties. Paul McCartney was a young rich man, a rock star in the biggest band ever, loved by all, and had access to as many girls as he could get his hands on. Brian Epstein wanted to protect the interests of Paul, the Beatles, and his business, and dealt with it in the way an enterprising businessman would have in that era. It's underhand, but it was necessary. I'm certainly not going to entirely castigate Paul McCartney and Brian Epstein for the actions taken when I still love his music and contribution to culture in general. Also, why are you throwing this at Paul? The other Beatles slept around excessively as well.

Look, Ben, I've been a journalist. It has been my career to dig up the Truth. I'm good at it, I had a brilliant career (shut-down by ill health, dammit!). And as you see I've used as my signature here at The Beatles Bible a phrase from John Lennon's lyric "Gimme Some Truth." Years ago I made that phrase my personal motto: ALL I Want Is The Truth. Can you accept that? I truly hope you can. A free press really is the basis for our democracies.If fan-worhsip isn't a vast conspiracy of silence, covering the whole globe in celebrity dreck, than what is it? To my journalist's eyes, fan worship is dangerous. People talk these days about "The One Per Cent" of wealthy people who pull all the strings. Wouldn't Macca be among The One Per Cent? Philanthropy is often the False Front of the evil One Per Cent, so please, don't defend Macca with that dodge! His philanthropy is like pocket change to him. He can afford it.

Why shouldn't Macca's falsehoods and hypocrisies be held up for public examination? Somebody MUST always do that work, for your and my own good. I'm one of those oft-despised people. Sorry.

But they've been held up for public examination before. Tons of truth has been "dug up" about Macca and widely publicised. Whether it's true or not, who cares? Some of it probably is. I just can't understand why it's necessary for you to "dig up" all these old stories on this forum unless you're trying to get a rise out of fans. If your intention is to convert people away from liking McCartney "because he's not so cute in real life", why don't you try doing that to the average person on the street lest they should fall into the trap of thinking he's a nice guy? You're preaching to the converted here. People here already know about the questionable character traits of their heroes, and they've chosen to maturely accept it and still enjoy the music; surely it's a lot better for everybody if by joining this forum you intend to do the same.

15 January 20131.43am

EDSLocklear

Hunting Ghosts

Decca

Forum Posts: 95

Member Since: 14 December 2012

Offline

16

You have your opinion, Will. While I and everyone else here respects that, we'd appreciate if you wouldn't try to shove it down our throats. Let us have our own views of him. I apologize for your inconvenience at Paul's concert, but you need to respect our opinions and stop trying to force your views upon us. No man is perfect, and every celebrity is going to seem uptight. You just need to accept the fact that they are more comfortable with things going their way. Just accept it and move on.

If you see this site about fan-worship, then perhaps it is best you move along and stop waiting for replies to try and support your views.

"I'd tell her I love her, but she'd only reject me in the end and I'd be frustrated. That's why I play guitar; it's my active compensatory factor" -Ringo said something like this once, I changed it up a bit.

15 January 20132.12am

Funny Paper

America

Apple rooftop

Forum Posts: 2093

Member Since: 1 November 2012

Offline

17

I would suggest that the critics of Paul's personality may be a bit inaccurate. Paul is not being a control freak and egotistical because he gets his jollies that way or because he's a "mean bad person"; I think the explanation may be even less flattering: I think he suffers from a specific clinically diagnostic psychological syndrome technically termed narcissism (sure, that word is also used more casually, but it's also used in the field of psychology/psychiatry: look it up in the DSM-V -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....y_disorder); and he also seems to have aspects of OCD.

One example of Paul's OCD (aside from his perfectionism in music, which has good effects, though it may cause tensions with other human beings he works with) would be supposedly his insistence that the hundreds of staff who work for him on concert tours and the like cannot eat anything non-vegetarian, and if anyone is caught with evidence of meat, poultry or fish they may be canned (pun intended).

First off, Will, let me say that I am not always the greatest fan of McCartney. I believe there are things he has got wrong over the years and things he will continue to get wrong. He is criticised on this site, but praised as well - often by the same people in the same post. While there may be one or two people here and there on the site who have a blinkered view of their favourite Beatle (whichever one that is), the majority of us see all four as the flawed human beings they undoubtedly were/have been/are. This site is far from a bunch of Beatle superfans who are blind to their heroes foibles.

I just do not understand what you are trying to achieve here. Since joining the forum you have made five posts all on a topic you opened, with four of them seeming incredulous that we just don't get it the way that you do. You are entitled to that view, I even agree with aspects of your argument, but now what? I don't believe in Saint Paul. I never have. That does not change one iota of my admiration for his music. We come here to praise what he, and three others who aren't/weren't quite what their PR might want us to believe, achieved; we also come here to criticise them as well. As you might see/have seen exploring other topics within the forum.

I have seen every Beatle criticised for aspects of their lives, personality, music, decisions, choices, etc within these pages. Everyone here has their views on more or less everything and we often disagree, generally in a good-natured fashion. We discuss, we agree, we disagree. Then we find something else that catches our imagination to discuss about these four talented musicians.

You have your opinion, and it is to be respected. But it seems almost as if you're annoyed that, while some may find some merit in some of your points about him, myself included, it hasn't led us to the anger you seem to have toward him. You can know all the truths there are to know about someone, good and bad, and it still may not change your view of that person. Few of us here are starry-eyed and unquestioning, uncritical, but this is a forum made up of people who admire the four boys from Liverpool - flaws, faults and all - for the gift they gave us over seven remarkable years.

So now what?

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

15 January 20135.46am

Funny Paper

America

Apple rooftop

Forum Posts: 2093

Member Since: 1 November 2012

Offline

19

I agree with mja's general tenor and position -- not only about this site, the Beatles Bible; but I recall about 4 years ago spending a few months in the gigantic "Macca" fan site. One day on a mischievous whim I decided to post a topic on how Paul is increasingly looking like Angela Lansbury. None of the Macca fans there got upset -- in fact one of them helped me out by posting two giant photos each of Paul and Angela side by side, to show the startlingly amusing comparison.

I do see the OP's point on a certain level, however. More recently, this past summer, I remember stumbling on a YouTube video showing Paul at a public restaurant somewhere stalking out of the restaurant to confront some guy who was holding the camera. Paul's attitude during the whole confrontation reminded me more of Tom Cruise or some other infamous celebrity known for being an uptight pissant about fans & photographers, than it did the mellow Paul I was accustomed to assume characterized his demeanor. It's easy to be mellow when you've controlled your environment with the help of the hundreds of millions of $$$$ your fans have given you through the help of your vulpine agents and lawyers over the years.

Can buy me love

The Beatles Bible is run for the love of anything and everything to do with The Beatles. If you've learned something new about the band and wish to show your appreciation, why not make a small donation via PayPal? It'll help with server costs, research material etc...